Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Psychological(?) effects of global warming by Wagathon

0
0

We’ve got it every which way now. The Leftist-libs’ blindness to the evils of communism is so ’70s that environmentalists like Patrick Moore refuse to stand with the malignant enviro-whackpot neurotics any longer. Then, we’ve got George Monbiot in the wake of Fukushima has become pro-nuclear.


Comment on Psychological(?) effects of global warming by Brian H

0
0

Maybe a generation’s worth of sense. All we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.

Comment on Psychological(?) effects of global warming by Wagathon

0
0

And then George becaue anti-nuke, again.

Comment on Psychological(?) effects of global warming by WebHubTelescope

0
0
<blockquote>"I think your sourceis lying."</blockquote> Most everything can be found on the ND.gov <a href="https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/wbpc/pdf/2008%20talks/Tuesday/0800%20Mike%20Vincent%20S/Vincent%2020%20minute%20Bakken%20presentation%20for%202008%20WBPC%20-%20Minot.pdf" rel="nofollow">Department of Mineral Resources</a> web site. The presentation I linked to above is typical of the findings, see pages 18 and 19. Is the North Dakota DMR lying? It has been long known that these are transient wells. What the heck would you suspect? That they would last forever? Typical Cornucopian Cult member, dishonest to the core. Everything is supposed to last forever, until it doesn't. Then theyrationalize by making up some junk about Methane Hydrates, or whatever the current fantasy is.

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by lolwot

0
0

Dr Curry,

Willis Eschenbach plotted all the temperature proxies together to claim you can’t tell if CO2 lagged temperature:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nature_shakun_proxies_plus_co2_all.jpg

But the whole point of the Nature paper was that temperature rise in the northern hemisphere lagged the CO2 rise:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ShakunFig5b.jpg

Eschenbach goes so far as to graph the proxies by proxy type, but not latitude. Funny that.

Eschenbach also tossed in an argument that Shakun cut the CO2 data off after 6000BC and smeared the scientists: “I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …”

That’s an appalling smear. Don’t you see what Eschenbach has done there? For whatever reason Shakun didn’t show CO2 after 6000 BC, it can’t be for the fraudulent reason Eschenbach leads everyone to imagine. Because the CO2 rise is small after 6000BC and is easily compatible with a slight cooling trend.

But thanks to Eschenbach countless “skeptics”, including Booker, will now be pushing this argument to the public. I ask myself, is this kind of smear creation by Eschenbach deliberate? What do you think?

What’s more likely? That Shakun is a fraud, or Eschenbach is dishonest? Or neither?

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by MrE

0
0

Sounds wasteful. Some good hockey sticks are over $300 without a signature. If there is one thing I could potentially agree with alarmists about is not to be wasteful, but they are always just as wasteful as everyone else.

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by Jim2

0
0

Well, actually, most evacuees from there would move left.

Comment on Psychological(?) effects of global warming by Jim2


Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by John Carpenter

0
0

no… most evacuees from there are already left and would have to move right… ironic isn’t it?

Comment on Letter to the dragon slayers by Pete Ridley

0
0

Hi again Ken (ref. April 15 at 10:27 am), my sincere apologies. At what John O’Sullivan called on his FriendReunited page “ .. a Parliamentary meeting on October 27th 2010 to discuss latest developments in the climate change controversy” (http://www.webcitation.org/63Xa5IrrY) he is quite clear proudly displaying a cheque that is made out to Piers Corbyn for TEN THOUSAND $ from your publishing company Stairways Press (http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/CFD%205.jpg). What is not at all clear is why Piers only received $1,000 and the remaining $9,000 was withheld.

Being a bit of a musician (http://www.owlband.com/history.htm) among all of your other talents (berry picker, cat food factory worker, dish washer, Air Force Sergeant, rock-n-roll bass player, concert promoter, author, publisher, electrical engineer and manager) you have probably heard of that popular song “Multiplication, that’s the name of the game” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiW0UV39hPc). Replacing “multiplication” with “procrastination” is relevant here. What’s the “Slayers” game as far as pretending to make an award of $10,000 to poor old Piers but retaining $9,000 for other purposes and why the procrastination by you (and the “Slayers”).

Others can draw their own conclusions from this about how important transparency is to the PSI gaggle.

It would be prudent for Professors Ian Plimer and Paul Reiter and anyone else considering getting into bed with them to have a careful read of the comments here, especially those from Andrew, me and the handful of “Slayers” who have put in an appearance.

I’ve asked Lord Monckton to pass that message on to Professors Plimer and Reiter.

BTW, perhaps you and the “Slayers” can get some help from Steven Cutler (http://how-to-stop-procrastinating.info/). He might even consider joining PSI.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by climatereason

0
0

R Gates

I fear that you are often more interested in theoretical climate models than accounts of extreme weather events from the past and evidence of previous climate shifts.

Britain is fortunate in having an especially rich chronology of extreme events, nowhere better drawn together than by Hubert Lamb in his book ‘Hitoric storms of the North Sea, British Isles and Northwest Europe.’ ‘Freak weather’ by Graham Mc Ewan also does a fine job of drawing historic events together and that these were often strange and calamitous can be seen in this title page of a book cover printed in 1682 for a special booklet circulating in Oxford;

“A strange relation of the sudden and violent tempest which happened at Oxford May 31 1682 together with an enquiry into the probable cause and usual consequences of such like tempests and storms.”

So even back then we were searching for reasons for things that were out of the ordinary, but by no means unique.

If you recall I made this comment in my article ‘The long slow thaw’ after reading many thousands of contemporary accounts of the weather from around 1400 to 1720;

“The overwhelming impression I formed from reading the accounts of the vagaries of the climate of yesteryear was that they sounded exactly like today, with perhaps greater variability, extreme events and colder bits thrown in, although after the last few bitter winters the striking similarities with the past have become even closer. It is difficult to determine any evidence of notable climate change in recent years leading to a dramatic change in our climate or a surge in temperatures. What we can observe is a transition from the anomalously intermittently cold periods of the LIA together with lots of examples of climate variability.
Most notably the modern observer might feel that our current era seems to have lost the extreme winters of yesteryear- which in turn have had a considerable impact on the overall mean average temperature in the last few decades. However, once again history can show us that this apparent dearth of cold winters has had numerous precedents in our past.

Reginald Jeffery observed in his book ‘Was it Wet or was it fine,’ “By 1708 the middle aged would say where are our old winters?”

http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

My favourite individual account was one describing how six large oaks were wrenched by the wind from the hill, complete with roots and half the hill and was deposited hundreds of yards away. Britain has many villages that were snuffed out almost overnight when they were overcome by waves or sudden sandstorms.

Evidence of climate shifts in the wider world is given in my article immediately after the quote above from Section 7. A shorter version was carried here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/

tonyb

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by Jim2

0
0

Climatereason – If this were true, the climate models would have accurately back-casted the loss of the trees and that hill. Now let go of this silly notion that history has anything of value to add to the climate debate.

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by David L. Hagen

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by Jim2

0
0

Why is it that some providers were required to use RE and others were not?

Comment on The ongoing debate . . . by lolwot

0
0

Irrelevant. The claim Doiron made was that Hansen had misreported his own temperature record. He hadn’t.

Besides that, HadCRUT4 shows a rise, so does UAH and so does BEST if you add an ocean record like HadSST2. The only popular record that show a decreasing trend since 1998 is RSS.

As for statistical significance – that cuts both ways. You can’t claim temperatures are flat when the uncertainty includes the possibility they are rising. And climate scientists had this all covered if people would have just listened to them: the famous 30-year period we are supposed to use for assessing climate change. It’s there for a reason.


Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by kellermfk

0
0

Appropriate in what sense? It’s virtually useless relative to any meaningful impact on global CO2 and the cost is “off-scale-high” relative to conventional sources, particularly natural gas power plants.

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by cui bono

0
0

The data has taken another lurching advance this week, if any of it is believable.

Estimates of ice loss by Himalayan glaciers pre-2012: 50 billion tonnes p.a.

Estimates of ice loss by Himalayan glaciers Feb 2012: 4 billion tonnes p.a. (US team, published in Nature).

Today: “A French team, comparing 3-D satellite maps from 2000 and 2008, said the glaciers had not lost mass over this period and may even have grown a tiny bit, at 0.11 millimetres (0.04 of an inch) per year.”

My projection for the year 2035 (I picked this year at random) is that the glaciers will be so massive they will grind the entire Himalayan mountain range into gravel.

Sadly, the scientists involved don’t want to upset anybody: ‘Julie Gardelle of the University of Grenoble in southeastern France told AFP “But it does not detract in any way from the evidence for overall global warming,” ‘.

They always say that! They always, always say that! It reminds me of a wonderful line given to John Adams in the musical 1776, addressed to more genteel members of the Continental Congress: “Good grief, this is a revolution dammit! We’re going to have to upset somebody!”

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by Louise

Comment on Week in review 4/13/12 by R. Gates

0
0

There are at least 3 very obvious “lags” to any significant change to climate forcing, and we see these throughout the paleoclimate record when looking at past climate change, such as coming and going to and from glacial periods.. But before discussing these lags, let’s called them something a bit more scientific and that would be both slow-feedback responses to forcing and the ocean’s heat capacity and thermal inertia..

First, let’s discuss the ocean itself. The ocean, as the prime reservoir of energy on the planet also has the greatest thermal inertia. We’ve been getting better and better at measuring the energy going into the ocean, and have seen that by far most of the warming the planet has seen has gone to the oceans. Somewhere around 23 x 10^22 Joules of energy over the past 40 years has gone into the top 2000m of the ocean due to the Earth’s energy imbalance This energy is still there, and growing, and will effect the clmate for centuries as it eventually comes back into the atmosphere.

But the next “lags” or slow-feedbacks to climate change are the cryosphere and biosphere. Both of these take many decades to fully respond to any given forcing, and thus, they are currently still responding to 392 ppm of CO2. The cryosphere has annual cycles, but ressponds over decades to changes in forcing. We see this in the paleoclimate record as glaciers grow or contract over thousands, recacting to small changes in solar insolation brough about through Milankovitch cycles and the resultant positive feedback creating by the outgassing of CO2 from the oceans. In the future, as CO2 continues to increase, we will never actually see the planet’s equilibrium response to CO2 to 392 ppm, and (assuming we stop at 450 or 560 ppm), our future generations may get the opportunity to see what the final equilibrium response to that future CO2 level, albeit many decades after that level is reached and has stabilized. Equally, the biosphere can take many decades to respond to warming as species slowly migrate to new areas, changing the landscape and eventually eventually even planetary albedo. The paleoclimate record shows the biosphere response is especially strong in polar regions, which makes sense as that’s where warming is the strongest as well..

Comment on Assessing climate model software quality by Bart R

0
0

emmenjay | April 16, 2012 at 2:08 am |

It’s not hard to produce even tens of thousands of lines of code with zero defects.

Just don’t expose the code to a compiler.

With the standard practice of code re-use, very high numbers of lines of code can be produced with little defect, too; provided the compiled code isn’t exposed to users.

More to the point, defect counts reveal little about the design; looking at the particulars of the cases in question, where it appears the design itself was re-used and the users compliant to the needs of that design (a very unusual situation), it’s particularly meaningless to compare to the general case.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images